They did this to explain his confessions and how the confinement caused him to crack. She also said when Rick views a relationship problem or loss of support he becomes suicidal These cracks in what she described as an egg shell over time cause psychosis. They used this to also explain his behavior in his cell where he was violent against himself by banging his head against the wall and masturbating without clothes.

He is one of the complications of DPD.

Dependent men have an increased risk of perpetrating domestic violence, and dependent men and women are more likely to engage in child abuse. Women with dependent personality disorder are more likely to be in multiple abusive relationships.[1] Dependent individuals are also at higher risk for parasuicide and suicide, especially when an important relationship ends.[1][25][39][49][50] Substance use disorders are common among individuals with personality disorders.[51] Individuals with dependent personality disorder may be at increased risk for depressive disorders, anxiety disorders, and adjustment disorders, as well as other personality disorders.

Ricks wife said that rick tried to kill himself a few years before he was arrested and suffered his whole life from depression. I think she specifically said he put a gun in his mouth. So according to the defense's medical professional, Rick would have viewed his relationship in trouble years before he was arrested. This can cause Rick to crack and slip into psychosis.

Wouldn't his condition explain attacking two girls in the woods and the crime scene? Having a psychotic episode, similar to the ones he had in prison, then returning to normal at some point later. Thinking sticks camouflage them. Getting scared by a van. Taking the cloths off one. This all seems to perfectly fit into the diagnosis.

The Delphi trial, like all criminal proceedings, underscores the epistemological limits of the legal system. Fundamentally, a trial does not determine ontological truth—what actually happened in the world—but instead establishes legal truth, a construct shaped by evidence, viewee under procedural constraints. This distinction is crucial in understanding the limits of epistemology in legal contexts..

Legal truth is determined in an adversarial system, where competing narratives are presented within strict evidentiary rules. What can be considered "true" in a courtroom is not necessarily what is objectively real but rather what meets the standard of proof within the procedural framework. This means a verdict is not a definitive statement about reality but a function of what is demonstrable under legal constraints.

The epistemic problem arises in how truth is inferred. Unlike scientific inquiry, which allows for continued revision and falsifiability, the legal system seeks finality. The jury, constrained by cognitive biases, incomplete evidence, and persuasion tactics, must reach a binary decision: guilty or not guilty. This process forces certainty onto uncertainty, potentially leading to errors that legal mechanisms struggle to correct.

The Delphi case exemplifies these tensions (whether people are willing to accept it or not). The legal system can produce outcomes that deviate from ontological truth due to evidentiary exclusions, unreliable testimony, or flawed forensic interpretations. The fundamental limit of epistemology in law is that it cannot guarantee truth—only a structured resolution of competing claims, subject to human fallibility.

In an interview it looks like Ron Logan had the same jacket on that he did when he was walking across the bridge to me.

I’ve seen a lot of discussion about the other three parts (Brad Weber false testimony, Ron Logan confession, iPhone/headphones claim) but not as much about the safekeeping. Here’s some article text to summarize, and another in the comments:

https://www.wrtv.com/news/delphi/in-a-bid-to-overturn-convictions-allens-defense-points-to-alleged-missteps-in-delphi-murders-case

1. Illegal Safekeeping Proceedings

The first issue relates to the circumstances of Allen's custody. Following his arrest, he was relocated from the Carroll County Jail to the Indiana Department of Corrections. The defense argues that this transfer was unlawful and that Allen's right to legal representation was violated. They assert that his attorney was not notified about the proceedings, which deprived him of the right to be represented in this critical matter.

Court documents detail Allen hired an attorney after being arrested. The defense stated, “Mr. Allen was not afforded either the right to be heard by counsel or by himself at the safekeeping 'proceeding.'”

Two questions:

Is there any plausible relationship behind the supposed confession of RL and the suggestion he was worried about getting blood on one of the girls and consequently how they were found dressed?

Is it a fact that the girls crossed the creek? Or is it possible that they walked back over the bridge and went down the hill on the northern end?

https://www.courttv.com/news/delphi-defense-filing-includes-alleged-confession-from-inmate/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/fox59.com/news/former-delphi-murders-suspect-made-detailed-confession-to-killings-attorneys-say/amp/

So... The "2025_Ex. 3 Hoffman Video Affidavit.pdf" shows that The State had this info and knew about it AND it proves that BW was lying during the trial about when he got home with his white van:

They knew:

"2. Included in the discovery provided by the State is the video file being filed with Mr. Allen’s Verified Motion to Correct Error as Defendant’s Exhibit 3A.

6. The video recording was provided to the defense by the State and has therefore been in the State’s possession."

Proof of no van until after 2:44:

"31. Either the white cargo van shown in Exhibits 3A, 3B, and 3C is Mr. Weber’s, with him arriving home some minutes after 2:44:54 p.m. on February 13, 2017, or it is not.

32. In either event, no white cargo van—or any other van—entered the private drive to the Weber’s property after 2:00 p.m. and at or before 2:32 p.m. on February 13, 2017, the time the extraction of L.G.’s cellular telephone shows the telephone stopped moving."

Corroboration by pings:

"37. The F.B.I. Subject Information Sheet for Mr. Weber, Exhibit 3E, says: “On 2/13/2017 Weber's phone pings to parents’ address overlooking crime scene initially at 2:50pm and repeatedly pings around the property until 11:55pm.”

38. That Mr. Weber’s phone first pings to his parents’ address at 2:50 p.m. on February 13, 2017, is consistent with the video evidence in Exhibits 3A, 3B, and 3C, showing that Mr. Weber could not have arrived home in his white cargo van until sometime after 2:44:54 p.m. that day."

Here's the filed docs: https://drive.google.com/drive/u/0/mobile/folders/1-ISOnzlkXOfo1FPEkUqovEtC8JZSHiCM?usp=drive_link

Unfortunately I saw the crime scene pics on X. I don’t want to get into the details but I was amazed by the sticks and the way they were left on the victims. I personally don’t see any Odinist connection but they were placed over the wounds. Exactly on the wounds . Was this done to stop the killer seeing the devastation he caused or was it to stop animals ? I don’t know . We know he spent sometime with the girls. All I can say is they were purposely left. I’d like to hear your thoughts .

I live in Jeffersonville, Indiana and I've always been interested in learning about crimes, missing cases, murders, etc. Just wanted to see anyone else's opinion on this. Do you think any adults, kids, teens, were influenced by this case to do the same or to do something worse in the future, what do you think?

Can anyone out there think of a logical reason why Abby was dressed in two bras (her and Libbys)? Whichever way I think about it, albeit Abby dressing herself or the RA dressing her, I just can't think of any reason for it. It was stated in court (I think by the blood spatter expert) that she was dressed while still alive. If she was redressing herself to escape, why bother wasting time putting on two bras, or any bra for that matter). Wouldn't you throw on just the sweatshirt and run? If RA did it, then why? The redressing of Abby in Libby's clothes just boggles my mind. There has to be a reason for it, I just can't figure it out. Open to all theories! One theory that I did come up with was related to his statement that the girls were younger than he thought. Maybe that was true and when he undressed Abby, who had a smaller body, he realized she was a child and forced her to redress so he didn't have to look at her childlike body. But I don't even know if that makes sense.

What do you guys make of the statement made in the video by Abby of 'don't leave me up here?' Who was she talking to? I don't know how to interpret this comment. Did Allen initially only ask Libby to go down the hill, and she responded 'but don't leave me up here?' Or was this stated before RA came along, was Libby searching for an escape down the hill and a frightened Abby asked her not to leave her up on the bridge? I feel like it must have been said before RA came along, but if she is asking not to be left 'up here', it implies that the person she was talking to was going downwards (I.e., down the hill).

For reference, these words were the interpretation presented at the trial by Tony Liggett (https://dailyjournal.net/2024/10/25/delphi-jurors-watch-bridge-guy-video-learn-of-cryptic-statements/) and reiterated by Abby's grandmother in her witness impact statement:

'Humiliated is what she would have been during this trial. She was a modest girl. She explained she did not show off and yet here she was with photos of her mutilated, photos of her in her most vulnerable state. And people have been sharing those photos. They are graphic photos. The thing that often haunts her that she thinks about is Abby's last words on the footage that Libby filmed on her phone. And it was quote, don't leave me up here. And she was afraid and Libby didn't leave her.' (https://app.podscribe.ai/episode/118449615).

Diane Erskin said she couldn’t shake the thoughts about her being terrified in those final minutes. She noted Abby’s words on the “Bridge Guy” video shot by Libby on the far end of the Monon High Bridge: “Don’t leave me up here.” She said she thought of Abby’s words as she sat through the trial, as brutal crime scene and autopsy photos were shared as evidence for the jury – images she said that would have humiliated a girl who blushed easily. Diane Erskin said she could have walked out of the courtroom at sight of “graphically horrific” images of her autopsy, but stayed because Abby had pleaded near the end not to leave her. https://www.basedinlafayette.com/p/update-richard-allen-gets-130-years.

Disclaimer: I understand that none of us have seen the video or heard the recording, and the intrepretation is subjective and may be incorrect. It's difficult to understand the full story with 100% accuracy as we don't have access to the evidence.

The town had 3000 people and police believed the killer to be from the town (or more, I know). So maybe half are male and half of those in the age group. Can you just interview 750 men and see what their voice sounds like and what they look like to narrow the list, and maybe pick up some other clues in that process? Maybe it would take a year but still. Tell me why this brute force idea is bad, or has merit.

The defense questioned the science behind being able to claim the unfired round came from richard's gun.

For those that are familiar to the trial. At a minimum were they able to establish it came from the same model richard owned? Did he have similar ammunition when they searched his place? I know it was years later but many people keep ammo for quite a while.

Lawyer Lee on YouTube will have the defence attorneys on her show around 7:00 pm EST.

https://www.wzdm.com/2025/01/02/state-public-defender-motions-to-appoint-two-lawyers-to-richard-allens-appeal/

https://www.whas11.com/article/news/crime/state-public-defender-asks-assign-two-attorneys-appeal-richard-allen-delphi-murders-case-indiana-murder-true-crime-news/531-f42b9620-c12b-4bea-836f-09c7de335950

Hi, I apologise if this has been asked/covered previously. I have some questions I hope someone can cover for me:

1. Why were the sticks not collected along with the other evidence?
2. Why did it take two weeks to go back and collect them?
3. Where they tested for DNA after being recovered?
4. Was there any evidence of the sticks presented during the case?
5. Could anyone have had access to the crime during the time the sticks were left at the crime scene?
6. The Franks memo mentioned that there were one or two branches that appeared cut by a saw. Did anything come of this?
7. Did the police even collect all the sticks?